Trot Nixon came to the plate in the bottom of the ninth with runners on second and third in a 9-6 ballgame and two outs. Nixon had walked and scored a run, but was otherwise 0-for-3 on the night. The next hitter was Garko., who was 3-for-4.

Garko finished the game 3-for-4.

I hate to say this, but Trot Nixon has that pleasant golden brown color and crusty aroma normally associated with heated slices of bread at breakfast. His OBP of .329 isn't very good, but at least it's higher than his slugging percentage of .325. THREE TWENTY FIVE! Let's put this in perspective: Josh Barfield slugs .341. Jason Michaels (Jason Michaels!) slugs .468! Let's put this into a slightly different perspective: it sucks! Aaah! Aaah! Aaaaaaaaaah!

Ok, I know that Dellucci is heading for the DL, and Choo is unavilable.....but man, I was hardly aware that Nixon has been this bad. A .325 SLG? Nixon is making Felix Fermin look like Albert Belle these days.

Nixon is clearly at the end of the line. No power. Can't run. Is subpar defensively. I don't see how we can stick with him the rest of the season. For as much as I get on Looch, at least he can still run and has shown flashes of power and that platoon split liked when we signed him.

The question is, does "good teammate and clubhouse presence" trump "shitty player" in this case? Are we willing to take what he gives us on the field, for what he arguably has brought to the team as a clubhouse presence and leader? Would a release or trade of Nixon actually have a negative impact on the team?

Trot Nixon came to the plate in the bottom of the ninth with runners on second and third in a 9-6 ballgame and two outs. Nixon had walked and scored a run, but was otherwise 0-for-3 on the night. The next hitter was Garko., who was 3-for-4.

Garko finished the game 3-for-4.

I hate to say this, but Trot Nixon has that pleasant golden brown color and crusty aroma normally associated with heated slices of bread at breakfast. His OBP of .329 isn't very good, but at least it's higher than his slugging percentage of .325. THREE TWENTY FIVE! Let's put this in perspective: Josh Barfield slugs .341. Jason Michaels (Jason Michaels!) slugs .468! Let's put this into a slightly different perspective: it sucks! Aaah! Aaah! Aaaaaaaaaah!

Ok, I know that Dellucci is heading for the DL, and Choo is unavilable.....but man, I was hardly aware that Nixon has been this bad. A .325 SLG? Nixon is making Felix Fermin look like Albert Belle these days.

Nixon is clearly at the end of the line. No power. Can't run. Is subpar defensively. I don't see how we can stick with him the rest of the season. For as much as I get on Looch, at least he can still run and has shown flashes of power and that platoon split liked when we signed him.

The question is, does "good teammate and clubhouse presence" trump "shitty player" in this case? Are we willing to take what he gives us on the field, for what he arguably has brought to the team as a clubhouse presence and leader? Would a release or trade of Nixon actually have a negative impact on the team?

Not bad Consig. Only 4 months to agree with what most people said the day of the signing. Maybe you aren't secretly Shapiro's nephew

Pup wrote:Not bad Consig. Only 4 months to agree with what most people said the day of the signing. Maybe you aren't secretly Shapiro's nephew

Feh.

Let the record show that I was never on board with the Nixon signing. When we signed him, I questioned it (wondered why we didn't just go with Choo). I was more against the signing, or at most just neutral with it than for it.

You may be mixing Nixon up with Dellucci, whom was someone I was fine with signing at the time.

Pup wrote:Not bad Consig. Only 4 months to agree with what most people said the day of the signing. Maybe you aren't secretly Shapiro's nephew

Feh.

Let the record show that I was never on board with the Nixon signing. When we signed him, I questioned it (wondered why we didn't just go with Choo). I was more against the signing, or at most just neutral with it than for it.

You may be mixing Nixon up with Dellucci, whom was someone I was fine with signing at the time.

Agreed, I could see Dellucci being a productive partner with Michaels, but never understood what Nixon had that Choo couldn't already provide, besides the Gritty Guttiness Coefficient. And the bad facial hair. And the spores.

I can back up Consig on this one. He's never been a proponent of the Nixon deal. He was arguing for the Dellucci/Michaels platoon in left. He'd have been right if Dellucci held up his end. Michaels has done well when he's been in. With how bad Dellucci has been against righties we'd be better served with Michaels playing everyday in LF.

Francisco has been hammering righties in Buffalo. That may not translate, but Michaels splits against lefties are better than Francisco's. Maybe the Tribe should just go for a Michaels/Francisco platoon for the time being and see how that works.

Well, now that B-Fran is here....I want him to play. I want F-Goot to play. I want Michaels to play. And, I want Nixon to play less.

I don't care how Wedge distributes the playing time.....I want all four of those guys in a regular rotation in LF and RF where they all get into at least 3-4 games a week. Michaels and Nixon will obviously get the majority of the time, but I want F-Goot and B-Fran to get a chance to play and not rot on the bench. This is an opportune time to find out what you have in these two. One of these guys has to be the 4th outfielder next year, or if they really produce, your starting 3rd outfielder.

TribeinLA wrote:Still, he's producing b/c he comes into better situations. No way should he be our everyday LF and I don't think you mean that...I am just saying.

Well, that's a terrific point. Michaels came in with the rep as a platoon player, and he certainly looked the part last year (as in, "Damn, can't we platoon that guy?!").

He is hitting "okay" against right-handers this season (.263/.288/.439), with some pop but a lousy OBP, but he's making hay in the role for which he's suited. The optimal arrangement would be to get someone to pair up (I kind of like the Van Emery idea), but it should be noted that he's out-performing Dellucci even in the bad half.

Steve Buffum wrote:Well, that's a terrific point. Michaels came in with the rep as a platoon player, and he certainly looked the part last year (as in, "Damn, can't we platoon that guy?!").

He is hitting "okay" against right-handers this season (.263/.288/.439), with some pop but a lousy OBP, but he's making hay in the role for which he's suited. The optimal arrangement would be to get someone to pair up (I kind of like the Van Emery idea), but it should be noted that he's out-performing Dellucci even in the bad half.

I think Michaels is definitely playing well because of the situations. As a platoon player, he has shown in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007 that he is very productive as a 4th outfielder. As a regular like he was in 2007, he has shown himself to be non-productive.

I'd still play him the same way, maybe a tad more now that Dellucci is out, and give most of Dellucci's at bats to B-Fran and F-Goot.

By the way, did someone mention using John Van Every? He may be an option.....he is the best defensive outfielder in the system, hits left-handed, has good power, has really made leaps with the plate discipline this year, has some Triple-A exposure last year and now this year, and is probably someone who will be lost this offseason anyway.

Yeah, I'd play Francisco against righties and Michaels against lefties for the most part, and to balance it out Michaels probably will get some starts against righties. I wouldn't be surprised if the playing time between the two was split exactly to 50/50 a week.

The Indians actually had a platoon at 1B with Sorrento and Murray....and at least in 1994 when there was a Kirby/Ramirez platoon in RF and Lewis/Thome platoon at 3B. But, I will agree, as the team established itself in 1996 and beyond, there were really no platoons.

Consigliere wrote:The Indians actually had a platoon at 1B with Sorrento and Murray....and at least in 1994 when there was a Kirby/Ramirez platoon in RF and Lewis/Thome platoon at 3B. But, I will agree, as the team established itself in 1996 and beyond, there were really no platoons.

Pup wrote:OK, I am sorry for poking at the Consig. It was more a shot at the whole Mark Shapiro is a genius angle than anything else.

I am off the attack Wedge bandwagon, and getting ready to start the attack Shapiro bandwagon. Anyone want to go for a ride?

You know I am a staunch supporter of Shapiro, but I am not afraid to acknowledge his mistakes. In hindsight, Hernandez has proved to be a mistake.

That said, I do give him props for not falling into the trap of giving multi-year deals to relievers this offseason. Had Hernandez been signed to a 2-3 year deal, or someone like him signed to that....and they performed like Hernandez did this season, there is no way they dump them like they did with Hernandez today. I still believe the one year deals for middle relievers is the way to go, as you can quickly address mistakes and have the flexibility to do it.

The offseason signings have been pretty weak though. Borowski and Fultz have helped the bullpen though.

Really, the only difference between this team and last year's team is Raffy Betancourt's emergence as a stud in the 8th inning and now having a serviceable lefty in the pen.

This team last year was more talented than people were willing to admit, and we are seeing that now I think. Maybe those pythag numbers aren't such a crock afterall.

Pup wrote:This team is better because of Fausto Carmona being better than Jake Westbrook was the first two months.

This team is better because Victor is better than Victor was.

This team is better because Paul Byrd got luck for a month.

Again, the talent was already here.

Players like Raffy, Carmona and Victor are having great years, and Peralta a bounce back season. Of course, Hafner is also in the midst of a down season.

This team is not better because of Mark Shapiro.

You give him props for not signing a guy to a 3 year deal that couldn't even make it through 1. You are awfully easy to please.

No, I give props to owning up to the mistake and letting him go. Admitting it just didn't work out as planned. That said, as I explained above, I gotta agree with the stance to only sign middle relievers to one year deals. If that is a multi-year deal, Hernandez is still here. That's what I am saying, that I agree with that type of signing....not the player, but the contract. I mean, he could have signed Baez like so many pined, and we'd be up a worse creek.

I'm kind of neutral on Shapiro. I think the pickup of Barfield was a good move, and I liked the Belliard signings when we did them. I haven't cared for many of the free agent signings, including Nixon, Dellucci, Fultz, Johnson, Byrd (unless he was perceived to replace Elarton as a #5) and Hernandez.

I know many folks believe we are lucky to have him, but I think he is just average as a GM. I believe that the signing of the guy from BPro, Keith Woolner, in some ways is symptomatic of my view of the Indians problems. It seems to me (I'm sure I am alone here) that they have fallen in love with statistical analysis to the degree that they think that if you just keep playing with the data you will get some new insights. My view is that some data has relevance, but much of it is suspect in projecting performance (vs analyzing what already happened).

I don't say this as someone who has disdain for math, my educational background is heavy on critical evaluation of statistical analysis. I just think that in some fields it is overdone, and in baseball I believe that much of it today is for the purpose of generating baseball jobs not having to do with the valuable skill of hitting or pitching a baseball. In other words, I'm afraid the Indians front office is turning into a bunch of highly educated guys reaffirming each others value, instead of really stopping and looking at the players from the Charlie Manual point of view.

I think that statistical analysis certainly has a significant place in baseball, but the Indians, and Mark, appear to be overly in love with things like RH/LH splits to me.

ArtGold wrote:I'm kind of neutral on Shapiro. I think the pickup of Barfield was a good move, and I liked the Belliard signings when we did them. I haven't cared for many of the free agent signings, including Nixon, Dellucci, Fultz, Johnson, Byrd (unless he was perceived to replace Elarton as a #5) and Hernandez.

I know many folks believe we are lucky to have him, but I think he is just average as a GM. I believe that the signing of the guy from BPro, Keith Woolner, in some ways is symptomatic of my view of the Indians problems. It seems to me (I'm sure I am alone here) that they have fallen in love with statistical analysis to the degree that they think that if you just keep playing with the data you will get some new insights. My view is that some data has relevance, but much of it is suspect in projecting performance (vs analyzing what already happened).

I don't say this as someone who has disdain for math, my educational background is heavy on critical evaluation of statistical analysis. I just think that in some fields it is overdone, and in baseball I believe that much of it today is for the purpose of generating baseball jobs not having to do with the valuable skill of hitting or pitching a baseball. In other words, I'm afraid the Indians front office is turning into a bunch of highly educated guys reaffirming each others value, instead of really stopping and looking at the players from the Charlie Manual point of view.

I think that statistical analysis certainly has a significant place in baseball, but the Indians, and Mark, appear to be overly in love with things like RH/LH splits to me.

Feel free to rip me for this...I'm expecting it!!!

Art, I can asure you that you are not alone in these thoughts. Statystical analysis is so overrated, especially by this org, that it nearly makes me sick.

Statistics work in 2 situations: 1) A huge sample size. Like millions of samples. Not in 5000 at bats. Not in 2000 innings. 2) Constants. If baseball worked so that everytime you guessed curve and they threw a curve, you got a hit these statistics would hold more water.

With the combo of a lack of constants and small sample sizes you come up with things like David Delucci, if you only play him against righties will hit .290 because that is what he has done in the past. What it does not show is, how many of those AB's came pinch hitting in meaningless situations against a righty that was garbage, or tired, or just didn't give a frick if David Delucci got a hit. Maybe they were up 5 and the guy is just throwing meatballs to not walk anyone. That is the role Delucci was most succesful in, because he has major holes in his swing. The more he plays, the more they are exposed and the more pitchers will work those holes.

The Barfield signing was good because it was affordable and we gave up Kevin K, who was an adequate trade for the Padres. I like the trade, but Shapiro got away with one. I, for one, would have a problem dealing this kid away.

The corner OF signings have been spoken for and the consensus is DUD. Marty Cordova and Todd Hollandsworth would have been cheaper.

The relief pictching is where I will gripe. Oldberto and Borowski have not necessarily been thrills. Oldbero was dumb. Borowski...you can't really argue with it. Preseason, you tell me he gets 22/24 save opportunities by middle of June and I tell you, "I will take it." The ERA stat for a reliever is never a telling sign. He is 4 million, which is mid-upper level expensive for Shapiro. 3.3 for Hernandez is assanine.

Shapiro is paying too much for the starting pitching. Byrd, Lee, and Westbrook are 16 million combined. That is too much for 11 wins. Sabathia and Carmona are a combined 9 million. The steal, though? Betancourt makes less than 900 K - less than Fultz. I hope Shapiro makes room for Rafael because we need him for the next 3-5 years. he has without question been the next best picther of any type next to CC and Fausto.

So, I ask one of you experts...what will it cost to get Grady and when is he due for a new contract? I cannot believe we still pay him under a mil. Victor is a comfortable signing, as is Peralta. Hafner is getting expensive when you think about what he will want to make and what he puts out. I think it's safe to say that we can play contending baseball without him, as we're basically doing it.

We can sure dump much of the combined cool $23 million that 3-4-5 and the starting corners make. I give Shapiro a C plus for offseason moves. Two have paid off (Barfield and Joe B) and three have been duds (oldberto, DD, and Trot). Last year was much worse as we parted with what was at the time a solid hitter in Crisp for what was at the time a minor league superstar; trading a near-washed up reliever in Bling bling Rhodes for a platooner turned every day starter in J Michaels, and lost out on Bob Howry. I think the move that started to pay and will hopefully continue to was getting Choo for a very expendable Ben Broussard. So, the records obviously prove it when you compare this year's moves with last's. I'm still waiting on a real big fish, as we haven't had one since Juan Gonzales and sort of in essence, Kevin Millwood.

I with this actually. Shapiro does a very good job with trades, especially trades where he acquires young talent. His days as a Farm Director definitely show here as a strength in his evaluation skills.

He really has had problem with free agency though. While I think he is smart to try and find those values, I think he relies on finding those guys too much.

He is good at building a team, and he has this club set to contend for the next several years. The question now is, can he get it over the proverbial top to make the playoffs and win it all?

The DiaTriber wrote:Those splits are an extreme departure from Francisco's lifetime splits and could easily be an aberration.

I think they're going to go with Michaels in LF, Nixon/Gutierrez in RF, and Francisco on the bench.

I could be wrong, but that's how I see it...and I find it to be a disappointing use of players.

They may be a departure for his career, but we're talking this year. Sometimes guys just do stuff that contradicts their career stats. If Francisco hits well against righties this year and continues to do it in The Bigs then he's the answer in LF with Michaels.

Gutierrez did well against lefties and righties in Buffalo. I say let him start every day until Choo becomes available or until Nixon looks like the better option. Give him the ABs and see how he does.

I'd say Michaels/Francisco in LF and Gutierrez in RF should improve the offense and is a nice defensive lineup. That gives you a centerfielder at every position in the outfield - plenty of leg to cover wide spaces.

Move Blake to 3B and give Shoppach more starts at catcher with Victor playing 1B more, though I haven't given up on Garko yet. When he gets hot again then you want to be sure to use him.

Shapiro should either sign a quality FA or not sign any at all. This shopping in the bargain basement is a waste of time.

I hope Woolner can tell Shapiro that if a 41 year old RP has a 1.46 WHIP in the NL and walked 32 in 63.7 IP that he will not do well in the AL and is not worth spending 3.5 mil on and losing a draft pick.

I have to disagree on not giving out 3 year deals to RP. Quality RP are worth it. (Baez is not a quality RP) They will always have value and you can trade them if you don't think they would be worth the money for the 2nd and third year.

Walker and Bradford are getting 0.5 mil less money this year than Hernandez. Speier is only getting 250,000 more. You could have signed any of these 3 (yes I know that speier has been sick) used them for this year and if you worried about them collapsing in the next 2 years you could easily deal them for quality in return after the first year.

Was the risk any greater of giving a quality RP a 3 year deal any more of a risk than giving 3.5 mil to a below average old RP and getting nothing? There is a much greater chance that a quality RP with a long track record of success will be decent again than finding a needle in a haystack from the bargain basement of RP.

Everyone is down on Shapiro for the lack of big free agent signings, but as I see it, that's not exactly his goal.

Every year, how many FA signings are there that are fiscally responsible and perform as expected? Name one. Shit, how many are fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE and perform as expected? For every giant contract given to Manny/A-Rod/Vlad, there are 10 Zitos/Mulders/David Bell's.

Shapiro is smart enough to realize that paying premium money for a ~30+ year old player is not going to be worth it over the life of the contract, especially in the $12m+ range that everyone seems to be claimmering for. For the Yanks, $18m for Giambi doesn't kill them, because of obvious payroll, but for the Indians, a $15m bust could tank the entire franchise for years.

Shapiro is the architect that has given us tremendous pitching depth and a great core of young positional players. The platoon signings are what they are: cheap ways to find production. I believe the real problem with the platoons is that we don't have a manager who can manage them effectively.

Duane Kuiper wrote:Shapiro should either sign a quality FA or not sign any at all. This shopping in the bargain basement is a waste of time.

We found Milwood in the bargain bin. We found Juan Gonzalez (the good years) in the bargain bin. We found Ronnie Belliard in the bargain bin.

Duane Kuiper wrote:I have to disagree on not giving out 3 year deals to RP. Quality RP are worth it. <snip> Walker and Bradford <snip> Speier

The variability in RP is what kills the multi year deals. They are so volatile that you can't predict their long-term performance with any sort of accuracy. Mota and Rhodes were AWESOME for a couple of years there. Chad Bradford has a 1.5 WHIP this year and a .308 BAA!

I mean, you're right on the "Roberto Hernandez is going to suck" call, but I'd rather take a shot at an RP like Roberto for one year, than be committed to Justin Spier for three.

In fact, I'd much rather have started the season with the kiddies in the bullpen (a la Johan Santana) than Roberto, but that would've caused Wedge's head to explode.

Shapiro is smart enough to realize that paying premium money for a ~30+ year old player is not going to be worth it over the life of the contract, especially in the $12m+ range that everyone seems to be claimmering for.

Replace any 3 of those mistakes and turn them into a 12M dollar player and we are much better off. It doesn't matter what position it is even.

Of course he has to be right. That is his freaking job to be right baout who he spends the money on. That is like saying I have to make a better choice in the house I buy because I can't afford a mistake like Donald Trump can. If he is afraid to sign someone for fear of failure, what good is he?

I don't understand how you can list these guys and not acknowledge all of the above league average players that he has found using this method. Paul Byrd, btw, has an ERA+ of 92 this year, and 91 last year. Basically, he's league average for $8m/year... much better than say, oh, Gil Meche for $11m/5 years.

Additionally, "should have been 5M" for Foulke is complete ex-ante analysis, as is your "replace any three and sign a $12m player," comment. Before the season started, what three would you HAVE NOT signed? Who would you have gotten instead? Additionally, what would you have done with the roles that needed to be filled?

Finally, I'd like to reiterate that I think the Hernandez signing was dumb compared to starting with Mujica in the 'pen.

Quit being snowballed into believing getting less talented players for cheaper money is the only way for this team to operate. Gil Meche would be a significant upgrade over Paul Byrd. And this does not mean I think we should have signed Meche. You put him into the conversation.

Shapiro caught lightning in a bottle one winter with Millwood and Howry and now his ego drives him to find these guys again. This way he can tell everyone how great of a job he did with this low payroll.

If we do not do something to help this team out at the trade deadline, it will be one of the biggest travesties in sports. Whatever they do, it needs to be big, because if they miss the playoffs after this start and bitching about fans not showing up, the fans will never come back.

That is the only way for him to convince me he is worth his extension.

I said I would have missed on adding Borowski, but you don't know that either Mujica or Betancourt do not step into that role and fill it just as well as Borowski.

Perez and Fultz are a wash.

So all I need in someone to step in and take Oldberto's role. I know, I would have brought back Danny Graves.

This is the funny part:

How does Carlos Lee solve any of this team's problems? You've spent $18m/6yrs for an 825 OPS, NL Player. The Indians have scored 391 runs this season, 2nd in MLB, offense is not the big issue.

That was the same rationale everyone used in December, and I always said by May, people would be asking for a RH power bat. If not Carlos Lee, we would be looking for someone.

Well, it is June and most fans are looking for a RH power bat.

Scoring more runs can win games too.

The 2006 Indians problems no longer need to be fixed. The 2007 ones do. My reasoning for going this route is I have faith in the relievers we had in our system. Mark Shapiro did not. Who are our best bullpen arms right now? Guys from our system. Mujica is now here to stay, so the backend will be Mujica/Betancourt/Perez. Stanford as the long man. Fultz will fill in innings.

Hitting with RISP is a big one. I believe Carlos Lee does pretty well in that category.

Pup wrote:I said I would have missed on adding Borowski, but you don't know that either Mujica or Betancourt do not step into that role and fill it just as well as Borowski.

Mujica has shown no ability to actually get MLB hitters out, yet. I like his peripherals, so I think he'll be great, but that's an awfully big question to have to answer at the beginning on 2007 when you had the worst bullpen in the history of baseball in 2006.

Not only has Betancourt already proved he can't close, he can't be used on multiple days:

But then you've still only got one lefty. I suppose you CAN have a bullpen with one lefty, but we quickly figured out this season that two is much better.

Pup wrote:So all I need in someone to step in and take Oldberto's role. I know, I would have brought back Danny Graves.

HA! Seriously, I just threw up a little bit... Man, Danny Graves jokes just hit SOOOoooo close to home. Honestly, I had blocked that out of my memory.

That was the same rationale everyone used in December, and I always said by May, people would be asking for a RH power bat. If not Carlos Lee, we would be looking for someone. Well, it is June and most fans are looking for a RH power bat.

I think a RH power bat would be nice, and we happen to have two corner OF positions that kind of suck, so finding one shouldn't be that big of a deal. It's certainly not an $18m/6yrs problem...

Scoring more runs can win games too.

See the thing about baseball, is that it is a whole lot easier to prevent a run than try to outhit the other guy. In order to win, you have to score however many runs you gave up, then one more. This, in addition to the leverage problem, makes a run prevented worth approximately 1.10 runs scored.

Would Carlos Lee be 10% better than our right field platoon, including defense? Maybe, but not necessarily, given league and park factors. Plus, we haven't even accounted for the EIGHTEEN MILLION DOLLARS.

The 2006 Indians problems no longer need to be fixed.

We're not doing hindsight here. We're talking about evaulating Shapiro on his 2006-2007 offseason performance given the information he had available and the player options available to him, in the context of the Indians' budget.

Mujica is now here to stay

Mujica goes down when Westbrook is recalled. I don't think we need 13 pitchers.

gte619n wrote:We found Milwood in the bargain bin. We found Juan Gonzalez (the good years) in the bargain bin. We found Ronnie Belliard in the bargain bin.

But the percentage of success in the bargain bin is low and it takes this team too long to cut the mistakes.

gte619n wrote:The variability in RP is what kills the multi year deals. They are so volatile that you can't predict their long-term performance with any sort of accuracy. Mota and Rhodes were AWESOME for a couple of years there. Chad Bradford has a 1.5 WHIP this year and a .308 BAA!

I mean, you're right on the "Roberto Hernandez is going to suck" call, but I'd rather take a shot at an RP like Roberto for one year, than be committed to Justin Spier for three.

In fact, I'd much rather have started the season with the kiddies in the bullpen (a la Johan Santana) than Roberto, but that would've caused Wedge's head to explode.

Those RP I mentioned have had quite a few consecutive years of quality RP. It's the bargain basement guys that you don't know what you are getting from one year to the next.

Unless you put in no trade clauses you can trade them. You aren't stuck with them.

But the percentage of success in the bargain bin is low and it takes this team too long to cut the mistakes.

I would say that the percentage of bargain RPs that are successful vs. unsuccessful in about the same as the ones with huge contracts. Just recently, we've seen guys like Joe Nathan, Derrick Turnbow, even freakin' Liriano was a reclamation project, come out of the crap bin to become useful major leaguers. I pisses me off how good the Twins are at this.

I completely agree that it takes the Indians too long to cut the mistakes. Couldn't agree more.

Those RP I mentioned have had quite a few consecutive years of quality RP. It's the bargain basement guys that you don't know what you are getting from one year to the next.

Like I said earlier, Art Rhodes and Gil Mota had several season of dominance, before completely and without warning, crapping the bed.